Vice
presidential debate moderator Bernard Shaw displayed more liberal bias
during the debate, in the liberal agenda of his questions about gender
pay, gay rights and how Social Security is sacrosanct, than the networks
did afterward.

In an AP story distributed before the debate, CNN
anchor Shaw promised: "I'm an old-fashioned journalist who believes
in being fair, balanced and accurate, and those principles color
everything I do." But as debate moderator Shaw posed no explicitly
conservative agenda questions while he posed at least three questions
explicitly from the left, plus an inquiry with the odd premise of making
Cheney and Lieberman imagine they were black. Specifically:

-- Just 15 minutes into the 90-minute session Shaw
forwarded as fact a liberal canard: "Gentlemen, this is the 21st
century. Yet on average an American working woman in our great nation
earns 75 cents for each dollar earned by a working male. What do you males
propose to do about it?"

(The Independent Women's Forum published a study
last year documenting how women with equal years in the work force and
comparable qualifications as men make 98 percent as much. To read
"Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of
Women in America" by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba, go
to: http://www.iwf.org/pubs/figures.shtml[2])

-- "We all know Social Security is the backbone
of the retirement system in our nation. Can either of you pledge tonight,
categorically, that no one will lose benefits under your plans?"

-- "Senator, sexual orientation. Should a male
who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all, all the
constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?"

At another point he formulated a very odd premise
for a question: "Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman: You are black for this
question. Imagine yourself an African-American. You become the target of
racial profiling either while walking or driving. African-American Joseph
Lieberman, what would you do about it?"

When he did raise a Clinton-Gore policy failure he
offered Lieberman cover by including Republican administrations in his
question: "Senator Lieberman, this question is to you. Many experts
are forecasting continuing chaotic oil price on the world market.
Wholesale natural gas prices here in our country are leaping. Then there
are coal and electricity. Have previous Republican and Democratic
Congresses and administrations -- including this one -- done their job to
protect the American people?"

He did do a balanced job in raising the hypocrisy
charge against each nominee. To Cheney: "Your congressional record.
You sponsored a bill that said no to oil and gas exploration in Wyoming
wilderness areas, your own state. However, you co-sponsored a bill that
said yes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Your
explanation?"

Later he set up Cheney: "Have you noticed a
contradiction or hypocritical shift by your opponent on positions and
issues since he was nominated?"

The CBS
News team, led by Dan Rather, was ecstatic about the tone of
Cheney-Lieberman VP debate. "Give it a rave," exclaimed Dan
Rather immediately after it ended Thursday night. He argued: "This
may well go down as the best vice presidential joint appearance on
television since the television era in presidential and vice presidential
campaigns began." Phil Jones gushed that it was "probably the
best vice presidential discussion that we've had so far in the history
of these discussions."

Bob Schieffer suggested Gore and Bush could learn a
lot from their VPs since "these two men talked in ways that people
could understand."

Rather delivered a fresh Ratherism during his
post-debate analysis. He suggested that at one point Cheney looked at
Lieberman "like he was a hitchhiker with pets."

Picking up on Rather's post-debate remarks quoted
in the first paragraph above, he continued his gushing:
"Give it a
rave. This may well go down as the best vice presidential joint appearance
on television since the television era in presidential and vice
presidential campaigns began. Some people may not call it exactly lively
and some may want to say, well for long stretches it should have carried a
warning, 'do not listen while driving or operating heavy machinery.'
But this was a civil, intelligent, informative discussion of the issues by
two candidates for Vice President. Both of them showed how well
experienced they are, what decent and moderate people they are. They
sparred, but they did it politely. It may have been a little short on
style. It did have, however, more substance than the first Bush-Gore joint
appearance, at least in my judgment that may be the conclusion of a lot of
people."

Bob Schieffer saw the VP candidates as a model:
"The thing that I come away from this is I hope that their bosses --
Al Gore and George Bush -- were watching tonight because I think both of
them could learn a great deal from their running mates. This was not a
case of people who seemed to be trying to work in soundbites that they had
memorized, but two men who have been dealing with these issues for a long,
long time and seemed to be able to get to the second and third paragraph
on these issues...."
"These two men
talked in ways that people could understand. Whatever you thought of their
positions on the issues, at least you come away thinking they have a good
grasp of it and that they knew what they were talking about and this was
not the first week that they had been required to state what they thought
about these issues. I also think they did it in very good humor. These are
a couple of fairly spontaneous fellows and I think we saw that tonight and
I found it a very enjoyable evening."

Rather then chipped in: "Well the humor came,
what about three-quarters the way through? Joe Lieberman, Senator
Lieberman, used the phrase 'big time.' Cheney shot him back a look as
if to say, looked at him like he was a hitchhiker with pets. He didn't
like it at all."

From Danville, reporter Phil Jones was even more
enthused than Rather: "You said that this was probably the best vice
presidential discussion that we've had so far in the history of these
discussions, or debates. I think you could probably go on to say it may be
one of the best presidential kind of debates too because I think both of
these people needed tonight to look like they deserved to be a heartbeat
away from the presidency and I think they both accomplished that."

The VP
debate impressed ABC's George Stephanopoulos almost as much as it did
Dan Rather. Stephanopoulos predicted: "This debate is going to be
played in college debate classes for years as a model debate. Both
candidates were solid and substantive and funny."

ABC, CBS and NBC analysts all praised both
candidates, as NBC's Tim Russert referred to them as "two class
acts," but Cheney got more nods for gaining the most. Tom Brokaw went
so far on NBC as to ruminate about how "there is no clause in the
Constitution to allow us to flip the ticket." Brokaw also noted how
"they articulated the positions of their campaigns more effectively
than did the tops of the ticket" at the first debate.

-- ABC News. Dean Reynolds, MRC analyst Jessica
Anderson observed, delivered a positive assessment of Cheney's
performance:
"I thought
Secretary Cheney had as his first order of business the job of reassuring
the country that the first and most important decision that Governor Bush
made after becoming a standard-bearer was a wise one, and that was picking
Cheney himself. I don't know what the audience thought, but it seemed to
me that Cheney made the points of Bush's platform better than Bush
himself, and he did it in a very unaffected way -- taking his glasses off
from time to time. He exuded confidence. I think the Bush people should be
very, very pleased with the performance."

Terry Moran approved of Lieberman's effort:
"As for what Joe Lieberman accomplished for Al Gore, what was
surprising in a way is that he didn't mention once Governor Bush's
record in Texas. That was something that Joe Lieberman has made a
specialty of out on the campaign trail. He didn't do that. The tone
tonight was not appropriate, and I think just as Dean mentioned, Dick
Cheney does credit to Governor Bush, Joe Lieberman showed why Al Gore's
selection of him did so much for Gore in the polls from the moment he made
the choice. It was a good night for them."

George Stephanopoulos assessed: "I think they
both have elevated their tickets' position, which means it's a wash. I
think that, Peter, this debate is going to played in college debate
classes for years as a model debate. Both candidates were solid and
substantive and funny. Both were what debate coaches call appropriately
aggressive on policy, and I think they both shored up -- Cheney shored up
one of Bush's weaknesses, a sense of gravitas. Joe Lieberman warmed up
Al Gore a little bit."

-- CBS News. Bob Schieffer opined: "I think
Dick Cheney helped himself. You know Joe Lieberman was so good tonight. I
don't think you can say either one of them won, but up until this point
Dick Cheney in a way has sort of looked like he was at the dentist or
something while Lieberman seemed like he was having a lot of fun. Tonight
Dick Cheney showed that he too has kind of a wry sense of humor."

-- CNN. Bill Schneider conceded: "It's gonna
be very hard to depict Dick Cheney as radical, some sort of a smug fat cat
oil man who's completely out of touch. I mean he was relaxed, he was
communicative, I thought he connected with voters just as we saw tonight.
And this caricature of him that's been promoted mostly from his rather
far right voting record, it's gonna be hard for Democrats to sell
that."

-- NBC News. Tom Brokaw judged: "It was highly
civilized. In many ways they articulated the positions of their campaigns
more effectively than did the tops of the ticket when they met in Boston,
it seems to me. Neither will be gold medal winners in the excitement
Olympics, which you can see based on how they had command of their
language and their positions tonight, why they are both so highly regarded
within their parties and have been effective in Washington, in the highest
reaches of the nation's capital."

Tim Russert contended: "There are very clear
distinctions between the Bush/Cheney ticket and the Gore/Lieberman ticket.
I think the American people watching tonight will say, 'Two class acts,
two solid performers,' and the expectations for Dick Cheney, I think,
were rather low because of his uneven campaign performance. He did quite
well tonight, but so did Joe Lieberman. I think the effect on the election
will practically be non-existent because of tonight's debate, but the
American people will feel quite secure knowing that whoever is elected,
there will be a very strong Vice President. But underscore your point,
there are big differences -- big time, as Dick Cheney would say -- on
education, Social Security and taxes."

Near the end of NBC's post-debate half hour,
Brokaw offered his thoughts: "First of all, about Dick Cheney -- a
lot of people have been saying good for governance, bad for campaigning.
But this is why George Bush picked him. Tonight everyone had a chance to
see that: small group, articulate, strong positions, an effective debater
and a reasonable man....And in case you're wondering, there is no clause
in the Constitution to allow us to flip the ticket tomorrow morning, at
this time."

One wonders how much less the media admiration for
Cheney would have been if Cheney had taken a strict pro-life position on
RU-486 and abortion, blasted away at Gore's fabrications, raised
impeachment and fundraising scandals, or really gone after Lieberman as a
phoney because of all his changed positions.

Only ABC
relayed post-debate poll results Thursday night. Peter Jennings assured
viewers the ABC News quickie poll was indeed scientific despite its speed.
Just before 11pm ET he announced how it determined more thought Cheney won
than were impressed by Lieberman:
"In an ABC News
poll of registered voters who watched the debate, here's what it looked
like. Twenty-four percent thought that Mr. Lieberman had won, 43 percent
thought that Mr. Cheney had won and 27 percent called it a tie. We also
asked these registered voters whether the debate affected their choice,
and here you see the support for the Gore/Lieberman ticket among voters:
45 percent before the debate and 44 percent after it. Support for the
Bush/Cheney ticket: 49 percent before the debate, 51 percent afterwards.
Not much change for the ticket, but with those registered voters, a
significant win for Mr. Cheney."

Sam
Donaldson stood out for not joining the media pack thrilled about the
civil tone. He wondered "where were the sharp differences?"
Why were the candidates so timid? Donaldson seemed to blame the media
for demanding candidates not be "mean."

Donaldson contended, as taken down by MRC
analyst Jessica Anderson: "Well, Peter, you know, it may be hard
to find something wrong with this debate, but I'm going to try. It
was friendly -- as you've said, convivial. It was responsible. Both
these men are heavyweights and they displayed it tonight, but maybe
that's what was wrong in a sense. You know, the first law in trying
to sell the goods is you've got to get the customer's
attention....
"It was
dull, and we had our focus group there, but they had to watch. I
didn't think it got anyone's attention. But secondly, maybe more
importantly, where were the sharp differences?...If there are no sharp
differences to be made, why bother? Why change? I like both these men,
Peter, as you know; I respect them both. But I do not believe this
debate is going to be shown as a model in debating classes from here
on out as to how to sell the goods."

Jennings wanted an explanation: "Well, Sam,
let me ask you this question. I said at the beginning that vice
presidential candidates often have a greater license to attack. Why do
you think they didn't?"
Picking up a
theme expressed recently by Rush Limbaugh, Donaldson seemed to hold
the media accountable, though he did not specifically cite the media:
"Well, I think because we've all said to them -- I don't mean
me or you -- but, 'Hey, you must not be mean. You cannot be attack
dog.' Debates -- have you ever been in Britain? I know you have,
Peter -- excuse me. Have you ever been places where they have debated?
I have watched in the...Indian parliament, the lower house, when Mrs.
Gandhi was the prime minister, as she sat there, people jumping on
desks: 'That's not right! That's not right! How dare you say
this!' It was riveting and the issues were mashed out. Where is this
idea that political campaigns must be between gentlemen and ladies and
if a cross word is said, 'Oh, that's so bad'? I think that's
nonsense."

NBC
hit Cheney for not including "payroll taxes" when he claimed
the Bush tax cut would cut taxes for everyone who pays taxes, though
obviously he meant income taxes.

Of the broadcast networks, only NBC offered a
fact-checking report Thursday night. Lisa Myers provided the
"Truth Squad" update, starting with this exchange:
Cheney:
"Fifty million American taxpayers out there get no advantages at
all out of the Gore tax proposal, whereas under the Bush plan,
everybody who pays taxes will, in fact, get tax relief."
Lieberman:
"The number of 50 million Americans not benefitting from our tax
cut program is absolutely wrong."

Myers reviewed the claims: "Well, it's
not clear whether it's actually 50 million taxpayers who get no
relief under Gore's plan or 30 million, but tax experts tell us many
Americans get little or no tax cut from Al Gore. Who are they? Single
taxpayers, married couples who itemize and retired couples."

Myers then added a strange twist caught by MRC
analyst Jessica Anderson: "But Cheney was wrong when he says Bush
cuts taxes for everyone who pays taxes. In fact, millions of
low-income Americans who pay payroll taxes, but don't earn enough to
owe federal income taxes, get no help from Bush."

That's a rather cheap shot since he obviously
was talking about taxes in the context of an income tax cut.

CNN
gave air time Thursday night to former Senator Alan Simpson to walk
viewers through how Al Gore in 1991 based his decision, on whether to
vote for against the Gulf War, on how much TV time he would get from
each side.

Simpson recalled at about 11pm ET:
"The Gulf
War vote was the most troubling thing I ever saw in my life. Al Gore
came to our chambers and said, 'How much time will you give me in
this debate?' We said, 'We'll give you seven minutes.' He
said, 'They give me seven on the other side.' We said, 'We'll
give you fifteen.' And he said, 'I'll be back.' And then he
called the Secretary of the Senate, and he said, 'Damn it, if I
don't get that kind of time, I'm going to vote the other way.' I
was there. You can go ask Nunn and Mitchell and those of us who were
involved who watched Al Gore on the toughest vote he ever cast
shopping around to see which side would give him the most time in the
debate. It galled me then. It galls me now."

A bit later, MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth noticed,
Jeff Greenfield raised a conservative concern, asking Bob Novak:
"There have been those on the right who have been urging the
Bush-Cheney campaign to run harder on the issues of social
conservatism. Clearly, that didn't happen tonight. Dick Cheney was
at pains to move, as you pointed out, much more toward a kind of
middle ground. Is that a strategic mistake on the part of Bush and
Cheney?"

[3]The
"can lady" could "can the can routine if she
wanted," FNC's Brit Hume demonstrated Thursday night. Instead
of just letting the Gore campaign tale remain unverified, FNC did a
little investigation and located her son who, it turns out, is quite
wealthy and has offered his mother money and housing. Reporter John Du
Pre learned from him that Gore was wrong: "Fact is Winifred
doesn't have to collect cans to pay for her medication."

Hume introduced the October 5 Special Report
with Brit Hume story, as
transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "In Tuesday's
presidential debate, George W. Bush not only had to contend with Al
Gore, he had to deal with the Vice President's unlikely cause
celebre, 79-year-old retiree Winifred Skinner. But the woman who has
now gained national fame as the 'can lady' is not in such dire
straits as Mr. Gore's words might have suggested. As Fox News'
John Du Pre tells us, turns out Mrs. Skinner could can the can routine
if she wanted."

Over video of Gore hugging Skinner last week in
at an event in Iowa, Du Pre reminded viewers: "Ever since the two
met at an Altoona, Iowa, campaign rally Al Gore has used Winifred
Skinner as a sort of campaign prop."
Al Gore:
"In order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to
go out seven days a week, several hours a day, picking up cans."
Du Pre:
"Well, not exactly. Gore got that story from Skinner herself, but
he didn't get it exactly right when he used the 79-year-old retired
UAW worker as an example of why he wants to reform Medicare. Fact is
Winifred doesn't have to collect cans to pay for her medication.
Just ask her son, a wealthy Iowa horse rancher and business
consultant."
From his ranch,
Winifred Skinner's son, Earl King, Jr., informed Du Pre: "She
doesn't want to take money. She doesn't want to be a burden, as
she puts it. The only form of income that is acceptable for her
because of her health, because of her age, is going on these can
tours."
Du Pre
elaborated: "King says his mother collects cans more to assert
her independence than to make ends meet. He says she has refused his
offers of money and his invitations to live in the small apartment on
his 85-acre estate, choosing instead to live alone and provide for
herself, even if that means doing a little scavenging."
King:
"It's been hard for me to accept, but after all this time I
understand my mother. She has her pride and her dignity, and she wants
to keep that."
Du Pre:
"Skinner refutes reports she's a pawn of Al Gore's
campaign."
Winifred
Skinner: "I think they'd better get their story straight before
they start telling lies on me because I'm very angry about them kind
of people."
Du Pre:
"But like it or not, the retired widow is now part of the
national debate, not just on health care, but on how far candidate
Gore is willing to stretch his story to make a point."
King:
"She's getting a little bit fatigued with it all."
Du Pre concluded
from Des Moines: "As Winifred returns home from Boston where she
was an honored guest at the first debate, her family says she hopes
she can get back to the quiet life she chose, living alone and
collecting cans for extra cash."

FNC's angle is quite a contrast to the
broadcast network presentations last week which turned Skinner into
the poster senior for a new entitlement program. Tom Brokaw, for
instance, introduced a September 28 NBC Nightly News piece:
"While
these presidential campaigns are scrambling to make the most of the
country's prosperity, there are still a great many Americans who
have been left behind. One of them turned up at a Gore campaign event
yesterday in Iowa, and her story has turned into more than 15 minutes
of fame. NBC's Jim Avila tonight on campaign soundbites and
real-life struggles."

Avila pushed the liberal cause: "By the end
of the month, her checking account down to a couple of dollars, her
pantry down to cereal."
Skinner:
"If I run out of anything to eat I can always have a dish of
oatmeal. And that's nourishing."
Avila:
"Experts say she represents many older Americans, 39 million on
Medicare, ten million low income, four million below the poverty line.
A spokesman for the drug company says he's touched by Winnie's
story, but insists there are programs already in place to help."
Alan Holmer,
pharmaceutical industry spokesman: "We want to be able to make
sure that every senior is able to have affordable access to those
medicines."
Over video of
Skinner walking down a street and bending over to pickup a can, Avila
concluded: "Programs Winnie Skinner says are not enough to pay
her $200 a month medicine bill or take this great grandmother off the
streets."

>>>
Support the MRC, an educational foundation dependent upon contributions
which make CyberAlert possible, by providing a tax-deductible
donation. Use the secure donations page set up for CyberAlert
readers and subscribers:http://www.mrc.org/donate[9]

>>>To subscribe to CyberAlert, send a
blank e-mail to:
mrccyberalert-subscribe
@topica.com[10]. Or, you can go to:
http://www.mrc.org/newsletters[11].
Either way you will receive a confirmation message titled: "RESPONSE
REQUIRED: Confirm your subscription to mrccyberalert@topica.com."
After you reply, either by going to the listed Web page link or by simply
hitting reply, you will receive a message confirming that you have been
added to the MRC CyberAlert list. If you confirm by using the Web page
link you will be given a chance to "register" with Topica. You
DO
NOT have to do this; at that point you are already subscribed to
CyberAlert.
To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail to:
cybercomment@mrc.org[10].
Send problems and comments to: cybercomment@mrc.org[10].

>>>You
can learn what has been posted each day on the MRC's Web site by
subscribing to the "MRC Web Site News" distributed every weekday
afternoon. To subscribe, send a blank e-mail to: cybercomment@mrc.org[10].
Or, go to: http://www.mrc.org/newsletters[11].<<<

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.